{"id":130370,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-13T21:14:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-13T15:44:34","slug":"anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                          AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n\n             Anand Bhatia vs. The Union of India\n\n\n      S.B.Civil Misc. Application (Arbitration) No.66\/2006\n\n             under section 11 (8) of the Arbitration and\n             Reconciliation Act, 1996.\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT                       ::       18.12.2008\n\n                            PRESENT\n\n             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA\n\n\nMr.H.R.Soni for the petitioner.\nMr.Kamal Dave for the respondent.\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
      The instant Civil Misc. Application is being filed for the<\/p>\n
appointment     of the arbitrator to        adjudicate the claim of the<\/p>\n
applicant    under sections 12,13,14,15 read with section 11 (8)<\/p>\n
of the Arbitration Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act<\/p>\n
of 1996′).\n<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
      The brief facts of the case for the just disposal of this<\/p>\n
application are that from the perusal of the record it reveals<\/p>\n
that an agreement was entered into between          the Union of<\/p>\n
India and the appellant on 23rd October 1991 regarding<\/p>\n
supply from AQG Quarry 30,000 cubic meter of 65 mm gauge<\/p>\n
ballast     to the Northern Railway specification and stacking<\/p>\n
on the railway land at Pokaran Railway Station, then loading<\/p>\n
into railway wagons at Pokaran Railway Station . Copy of the<\/p>\n
said agreement was       annexed     as Annx.5. It was further<\/p>\n
submitted     that under the said contract the Railway Authority<\/p>\n
used to assign the vacant lands for stacking the ballast and<\/p>\n
then further railway authority was duty bound to provide DMT<\/p>\n
( Special Train ) for lifting stacked ballast . The contractor was<\/p>\n
to stack ballast at the specified land \/ plots to be allotted by<\/p>\n
Railway for the purpose of stacking, and further       within the<\/p>\n
contract period Railway      was to provide DMT so that the<\/p>\n
material already stacked may be removed and contractor may<\/p>\n
further stack the material by following same process.<\/p>\n
      It was submitted that the material so required was to be
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
stacked near the Railway land only and it was to be stacked<\/p>\n
in huge quantity only on the specified land \/plot demarcated<\/p>\n
for this purpose   but the Railway was not having much more<\/p>\n
land\/plots demarcated, the supply which was agreed, that was<\/p>\n
30,000 cubic meter, was to be stacked as per the terms of the<\/p>\n
contract but then the precondition for the purpose of the work<\/p>\n
on the part of the Railway was that the railway was to supply<\/p>\n
the DMT for lifting already stacked ballast by employing huge<\/p>\n
quantity of labour and expanding huge amount of money for<\/p>\n
bringing the trucks, stack all the plots allotted to him but then<\/p>\n
within the stipulated time the railway could not supply the<\/p>\n
requisite number of DMT and in absence of the same, the plot<\/p>\n
already stacked could not be cleared and as per the clear<\/p>\n
terms of the contract, unless and until the already stacked<\/p>\n
material is cleared, the applicant could not have stacked the<\/p>\n
other round of the ballast. It was further submitted that the<\/p>\n
applicant performed his part to the best of his ability and still<\/p>\n
made several demands to supply him DMT, so as to clear the<\/p>\n
already stacked plots by lifting the stacked material, but all<\/p>\n
efforts of the applicant could not be materialised as the railway<\/p>\n
did not provide him DMT in time.\n<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
      In this respect, it was further submitted that numerous<\/p>\n
representations   were made on behalf of the applicant. The<\/p>\n
applicant has nowhere shown his inability to perform the work<\/p>\n
in the contract period and after expiry of the contract period,<\/p>\n
the applicant was not in a position to perform the work because<\/p>\n
of escalation and high rise of labour cost,       transportation<\/p>\n
charges and royalty etc.    It was submitted that the    railway<\/p>\n
authority, without considering the factual position, unilaterally<\/p>\n
without   authority, wrongfully forfeited the security amount of<\/p>\n
the applicant and also imposed penalty on the applicant . It<\/p>\n
was alleged that the railway authority was not authorised to<\/p>\n
impose penalty . On the basis of the aforesaid submissions , it<\/p>\n
was submitted that thus there arose a valid referable dispute<\/p>\n
with regard to said contract. It was also submitted that as per<\/p>\n
terms of the contract and as per agreed general conditions of<\/p>\n
the contract , all disputes with regard to contract was to be<\/p>\n
adjudicated by    arbitral proceedings. The applicant in that<\/p>\n
respect moved the authority. The applicant in his application<\/p>\n
submitted the valuation of the dispute amount to be Rs.50lacs<\/p>\n
plus interest @ 24% per annum        from the date the amount
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
became due to the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     It was submitted        that as per provisions of General<\/p>\n
Conditions   of   Contract   the    dispute   was   referable   for<\/p>\n
adjudication to two arbitrators. It was further submitted in the<\/p>\n
application that the railway authority, without caring          the<\/p>\n
relevant provisions , proceeded in an arbitrary manner. As per<\/p>\n
agreed terms and conditions, out of the two arbitrators one<\/p>\n
would be appointed by Railway authority and one of them<\/p>\n
would be nominee of the party and they will further appoint<\/p>\n
umpire. But the railway authority did not proceed as per true<\/p>\n
spirit of the terms   and appointed       sole arbitrator   namely<\/p>\n
Rashmi Chawala. Thereafter,          the petitioner submitted an<\/p>\n
application for the appointment of the arbitrator as per agreed<\/p>\n
terms,   on which orders were passed to appoint arbitrator in<\/p>\n
accordance with clause 64 of General                Conditions of<\/p>\n
(Regulations and Instructions for      Tenderers    and Standard<\/p>\n
Forms ) Contract. It is further revealed that       thereafter two<\/p>\n
arbitrators were appointed. Rashmi Goyal was nominated as<\/p>\n
Railway nominee and B.K.           Gupta, Dy.CE\/C\/Ju.II Northern<\/p>\n
Railway, Jodhpur was nominated as contractor’s nominee on
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
the suggestion of the applicant. In this connection reference<\/p>\n
was made      to Annx.1. It was further contended that these<\/p>\n
nominated arbitrators, in fact, never entered into reference.<\/p>\n
     It was      also submitted that one of the arbitrator<\/p>\n
B.K.Gupta, the nominee on the part of the contractor, lodged<\/p>\n
an FIR against the applicant before the RPE that the applicant<\/p>\n
had committed theft of the railway property,       which he was<\/p>\n
required to transport under another contract agreement with<\/p>\n
Railway . It was submitted that on that FIR, RPF authorities<\/p>\n
filed a complaint in the shape of charge sheet against the<\/p>\n
applicant petitioner. The   petitioner was falsely implicated in<\/p>\n
that criminal case and ultimately case was decided in his favour<\/p>\n
by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in regular<\/p>\n
criminal   case No.06\/2005 decided on 26.09.2005. A copy of<\/p>\n
the said judgment was annexed as Annx.2.       It was       further<\/p>\n
submitted that thus, the action of B.K.Gupta was contrary to<\/p>\n
applicant’s interest, therefore, he moved this Court under<\/p>\n
section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint Arbitrator. In the<\/p>\n
meantime, the Railway authority also unilaterally changed<\/p>\n
their nominee and in place of Rashmi Goyal , they appointed
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
Smt.Neelam Sanghi. In this respect, Annx.3 was annexed. It<\/p>\n
was again submitted that despite change of           nominated<\/p>\n
arbitrator by the Railways,   the arbitrators never entered into<\/p>\n
reference. The application was registered       as Civil misc.<\/p>\n
Arbitration Application No.22\/2003. The railway authority,<\/p>\n
without filing any detailed reply, submitted that the arbitrator<\/p>\n
has been appointed. Therefore, the application was dismissed<\/p>\n
as infructuous. The copy of the order passed was annexed<\/p>\n
as Annx.4. It was submitted that the position remained as it<\/p>\n
was. The arbitrators appointed      long back vide order dated<\/p>\n
20.06.95 and further modified by order dated 06.03.2000 have<\/p>\n
still not entered into reference, though the dispute was to be<\/p>\n
decided within a period of four months, that had expired long<\/p>\n
back and, thereafter, they were not authorised to pass any<\/p>\n
award. In these circumstances, the present application was<\/p>\n
filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         It was further submitted that, before filing the said<\/p>\n
application, several representations and requests were made<\/p>\n
for reference. Thus, , the railway authority got adequate notice<\/p>\n
by judicial proceedings continued between the parties. It was
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
also submitted in the petition that several letters \/ notices were<\/p>\n
given to the arbitrators nominated by the railway but           they<\/p>\n
were received back with the note that the addressee has left<\/p>\n
the place without address ,      some of them were placed with<\/p>\n
application. Thus, it was also        submitted that the applicant<\/p>\n
made       maximum     efforts   to   materialise   the   arbitration<\/p>\n
proceedings and to get the dispute adjudicated but everything<\/p>\n
went in vain. Therefore, submitting this application, a prayer<\/p>\n
was made to appoint       an independent and sole arbitrator.<\/p>\n
Notice of this application was given to the respondents.<\/p>\n
       The Railway Authority denied the allegations made in the<\/p>\n
application and filed a detailed reply mainly alleging therein<\/p>\n
that the arbitrators have already been appointed. Further,it was<\/p>\n
submitted that the matter was previously heard by the court<\/p>\n
on the said allegations and the application was rejected vide<\/p>\n
order dated 12.09.03. Therefore, for the same relief, second<\/p>\n
application is not maintainable and is hit by the principles of<\/p>\n
resjudicata. Along with the reply, the learned counsel also<\/p>\n
placed the order of this court dated 12.09.03. It was also<\/p>\n
submitted that by way of this application, in fact the appellant
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
was to   get removal of the nominated arbitrators. For that he<\/p>\n
should have moved the civil court. Thus, by way of present<\/p>\n
application he is not entitled for any relief and prayer was<\/p>\n
made to dismiss the application.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     It is further revealed from the record that to counter the<\/p>\n
allegations made in the reply by the railway authority, petitioner<\/p>\n
filed an additional affidavit along with relevant documents. It<\/p>\n
was submitted in the affidavit reiterating the earlier ground that<\/p>\n
the petitioner applied to the authority for    copies of certain<\/p>\n
letters written by the Railway authority to the arbitrators<\/p>\n
under Right to Information Act, which were lying in the office<\/p>\n
file of Railway and in pursuance of that, certain copies of the<\/p>\n
letters were supplied . In the affidavit he submitted the details<\/p>\n
of letters, on the basis of copies supplied by the Railways and<\/p>\n
submitted that a letter dated 15\/18.12.95 was issued from the<\/p>\n
office of G.M. Railways, intimating    the arbitrators   that   an<\/p>\n
award was required to be made within a period of four months,<\/p>\n
after entering into reference. Further, intimating them that if<\/p>\n
the claimant   is delaying then to    proceed exparte. Copy of<\/p>\n
letter Anx. 14 was placed in this respect.          Letter dated
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
04.06.99 , Annx.15, was issued for finalisation of the arbitration<\/p>\n
case . A letter dated 06.03.2000 again issued by the Office of<\/p>\n
the G.M. Railways to nominated arbitrator Neelam Sanghi ,<\/p>\n
requesting her to enter into arbitration,       Annx. 16     was<\/p>\n
produced in this respect. Letter dated 16.08.00 was sent by<\/p>\n
one of the arbitrator Mr.B.K.Gupta replying to G.M., Railways<\/p>\n
that after the expiry of four months, arbitrator has no power to<\/p>\n
pass award and informed to make a request before the court<\/p>\n
for extension of time. Copy of this letter was produced, marked<\/p>\n
as Annx.17. Letter dated 29.03.04 issued from the office of the<\/p>\n
Senior Divisional Engineer       NW. Railways, addressed to<\/p>\n
Dy.CME, NW Railways, Jaipur, intimating that till today he has<\/p>\n
not received any notice of arbitration proceedings from Neelam<\/p>\n
Sanghi and       B.K.Gupta. Copy of this letter is marked      as<\/p>\n
Annx.19, similar type of letter dated 27.06.05, marked as<\/p>\n
Annx.20. In the affidavit he further submitted that one of the<\/p>\n
arbitrator B.K.Gupta has already been relieved after transfer<\/p>\n
from the Railway Coach Factory but the Railway authority did<\/p>\n
not supply the correct address. In this respect he also filed<\/p>\n
Annx.21 to 24.\n<\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
     Thereafter, arguments were heard and             perused the<\/p>\n
pleadings of parties as well as record of the case.<\/p>\n
      During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner further reiterated the contentions placed by way of<\/p>\n
application and again stressed that the matter is pending for<\/p>\n
the last 15 years without any adjudication. The dispute of the<\/p>\n
appellant is genuine, the railway authority proceeded arbitrarily<\/p>\n
and thereby the applicant has suffered a huge loss by their<\/p>\n
inaction. His security money has been forfeited and for his no<\/p>\n
fault he has been penalised.          It was urged that due to<\/p>\n
arbitration clause , he is not entitled to approach directly to the<\/p>\n
civil courts. The nominated arbitrators have never entered into<\/p>\n
arbitration proceedings, therefore,      now the railway authority<\/p>\n
has waived his right to appoint new arbitrators, thus, in the<\/p>\n
given circumstances,      the sole independent        arbitrator is<\/p>\n
required be appointed. It was also submitted that the railway<\/p>\n
now cannot take shelter      of clause     rule 64 of the General<\/p>\n
Conditions of Contract . The nominated arbitrators by the<\/p>\n
railway are not ready to proceed in arbitral proceedings and<\/p>\n
they never entered into      reference, they never issued any
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
notice of reference and now they are not competent to pass<\/p>\n
award as arbitrators.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     During the course of arguments, he drew my attention<\/p>\n
towards the letter supplied by the Railway Authority on his<\/p>\n
request under the Right of Information Act and again on the<\/p>\n
strength of those letters, submitted that it is established from<\/p>\n
their own record that the arbitrates have never entered into<\/p>\n
arbitral proceedings. The prescribed time for passing the award<\/p>\n
has expired long back , one of the arbitrators     himself has<\/p>\n
shown his incapacity to pass an award as it is disclosed from<\/p>\n
the letter given by B.K.Gupta dated 25.09.00, annx.18. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances,   no arbitral   proceeding is legally   pending<\/p>\n
before the Arbitrators, therefore, it was again stressed that an<\/p>\n
independent sole arbitrator may be appointed and prayed that<\/p>\n
the application may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      In support of his contentions, he also cited judgments<\/p>\n
given in cases of Krishan Lal vs. Haryana S.A.M. Board<\/a>[ AIR<\/p>\n
1986 P&H 376],      VIP Industries Ltd. v. Saboo Sodium<\/p>\n
Chloro Ltd. & Anr. [AIR 2008 (NOC) 1449 (Raj.) 439], Murari
\n                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
Lal Khandelwal vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation &<\/p>\n
Ors. [AIR 2008 Rajasthan 108], Mahipatlal Patel vs. Chief<\/p>\n
Engineer & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.2350\/2008), and Citibank<\/p>\n
N.A. Vs. TLC Marketing PLC & Anr.<\/a> [AIR 2008 SC, 118].<\/p>\n
     On the contrary, learned counsel for the railways refuted<\/p>\n
the contentions and submitted that the present petition is not<\/p>\n
sustainable, as   already on the same relief application filed<\/p>\n
earlier has been dismissed. Further, for the removal of the<\/p>\n
arbitrator the present application is not maintainable . It was<\/p>\n
also submitted    that as per terms of the contract under the<\/p>\n
General Conditions of Contract (Regulations and instructions<\/p>\n
for tenderers and Standard Forms of Contract, as per clause<\/p>\n
64 no independent arbitrator can be appointed. Only gazetted<\/p>\n
Railway Officer could be appointed as arbitrator. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel drew my attention towards the said clause and further<\/p>\n
made submission that the application is not entertainable in its<\/p>\n
present form and prayed that it may be dismissed. In support of<\/p>\n
his contention he placed reliance on the provisions of General<\/p>\n
Conditions of Contract.\n<\/p>\n
                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
      I have considered the rival submissions and keeping in<\/p>\n
mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties, perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       From the perusal of the record,           as well as the<\/p>\n
contentions placed during the course or arguments, it is made<\/p>\n
clear that a contract was entered into between the parties on<\/p>\n
23.10.91 regarding supply of AQG Quarry 30,000 cubic meter<\/p>\n
of 65 mm gauge ballast to the Northern Railway. It was also<\/p>\n
agreed that supply were to be made according to specification<\/p>\n
and strictly according to the terms of the contract. It is alleged<\/p>\n
by the petitioner that specific land was to be provided by the<\/p>\n
Railway      Authority where the relevant      material could be<\/p>\n
stacked. Further,     as per the terms of the contract, DMT<\/p>\n
(special trains)     for lifting the stacked ballasts,were to be<\/p>\n
provided by Railway authority. It is alleged by the petitioner that<\/p>\n
that railway did not discharge       their obligation and due to<\/p>\n
inaction on the part of the railways, he could not perform the<\/p>\n
contract in time. He has further alleged that the railway<\/p>\n
authority,     without considering the factual aspect, had<\/p>\n
proceeded       to   forfeit the security money and       imposed
\n                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
penalty. Thus, there was dispute between parties with regard to<\/p>\n
terms of the contract. It is also not disputed by the parties that<\/p>\n
as per the terms of the contract, and as per agreed clause<\/p>\n
mentioned in the relevant general condition of the contract that<\/p>\n
in case of any dispute with regard to the contract between the<\/p>\n
parties, the matter will be resolved          through     arbitral<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     It is revealed from the record that the petitioner has time<\/p>\n
and again moved the authority in this respect and the railway<\/p>\n
authority, after a long exchange of communication and with<\/p>\n
the intervention of the court , two arbitrators Neelam Sahini<\/p>\n
and B.K.Gupta were appointed. But it is further revealed from<\/p>\n
the record that they have not entered into arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n
This fact is established from the document filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant , among them some of the letters are of the G.M.,<\/p>\n
Railways which has not been disputed by Railway authority<\/p>\n
despite   sufficient time.   From the perusal of these letters,<\/p>\n
some of them of recent time, I am satisfied that the arbitrators<\/p>\n
had never entered into arbitral proceedings. There are serious<\/p>\n
allegations against B.K.Gupta , nominated arbitrator on the part<\/p>\n
of the applicant . Looking to the serious allegations, it is not
\n                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
desirable to continue him as arbitrator and B.K.Gupta himself<\/p>\n
has shown his inability to pass the award on the pretext that<\/p>\n
time has expired. With regard to other arbitrator Neelam<\/p>\n
Sanghi, despite efforts, no response from her side is received<\/p>\n
by Railway, as well as to petitioner , even her address is not<\/p>\n
traceable and Railway authority has said nothing about her.<\/p>\n
      In this respect,    the authorities cited by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner’s side are also relevant. In the VIP<\/p>\n
Industries’   case   (supra)   where       grounds   of   reasonable<\/p>\n
apprehension about impartiality of arbitrator, it was observed<\/p>\n
that the High Court can exercise powers under Section 11 (6)<\/p>\n
to appoint arbitrator after removing nominated arbitrator. In<\/p>\n
Murari Lal Khandelwal’s case (supra)            where there were<\/p>\n
allegations against arbitrator        of    biasness, independent<\/p>\n
arbitrator was appointed. In Krishan Lal ‘s case (supra), the<\/p>\n
appointed arbitrator was transferred after reference of dispute.<\/p>\n
It was held that where the arbitrator appointed by designation,<\/p>\n
arbitrator so appointed is divested of jurisdiction in the matter.<\/p>\n
      I have also considered the contentions raised by the
\n                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent . But looking to the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case, as the appointed arbitrators<\/p>\n
have not entered into arbitral proceedings, thus the contentions<\/p>\n
are not sustainable. I have also considered the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the respondent that the matter was previously heard,<\/p>\n
but the present application is based on the changed<\/p>\n
circumstances. Therefore, the previous proceeding has no bar<\/p>\n
to appoint independent arbitrator. I have also considered the<\/p>\n
other contentions. The railway authority got appropriate time<\/p>\n
and notice to proceed with the matter, but they failed to take<\/p>\n
appropriate action and they remained in active on their part.<\/p>\n
Thus,     the contentions placed with regard to clause 64 of<\/p>\n
General Conditions are also having no force.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        In these circumstances, there is no    option except to<\/p>\n
appoint independent arbitrator. On the basis of aforesaid<\/p>\n
discussions, the application filed by the petitioner is allowed<\/p>\n
and Mr.S.R.Sharma , District & Sessions Judge (Rtd.) is<\/p>\n
appointed as arbitrator both the appointed arbitrators will not<\/p>\n
have any authority to pass any award. Application filed by<\/p>\n
petitioner stands allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
           The parties are entitled to file their claim and counter<\/p>\n
claim before the arbitrator and the arbitrator will decide the<\/p>\n
same in accordance with law. Rs.10,000\/- is fixed as initial<\/p>\n
expenses towards the arbitral proceedings, so that the<\/p>\n
arbitration proceedings may start. This amount will be borne by<\/p>\n
the petitioner and this amount will be adjustable from the final<\/p>\n
charges determined by the arbitrator. Fee of the arbitrator and<\/p>\n
other         expenses of the arbitration proceedings will be<\/p>\n
determined by the arbitrator himself. That will be borne by both<\/p>\n
the parties equally. The appointed arbitrator         be intimated<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           A copy of this order may also be sent to the District<\/p>\n
Judges, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur,          with a direction that if any<\/p>\n
accommodation and infrastructure is demanded by the<\/p>\n
Arbitrator for arbitral     proceedings,   that may be provided to<\/p>\n
the Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (MANAK MOHTA), J.\n<\/p>\n
l.george\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Anand Bhatia vs. The Union of India S.B.Civil Misc. Application (Arbitration) No.66\/2006 under section 11 (8) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 18.12.2008 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nAnand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-13T15:44:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-13T15:44:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3227,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-13T15:44:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-13T15:44:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-13T15:44:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":3227,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008","name":"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-13T15:44:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anand-bhatia-vs-union-of-india-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anand Bhatia vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}